Originally Posted by Mikebert

Our difference is the bolded statement. It is wishful thinking. The Democrats and Republicans aren't going anywhere. Parties can and do change coats. Today's Republican and Democratic parties are totally different creatures than the entities that bore the same name in my youth. Look at my parent's presidential voting record: Eisenhower, Nixon. Goldwater, Nixon, Nixon/McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. Note the change. They didn't really change, the parties did. Ronald Reagan made the same point, although for him it was some of both. So that was a coat change. There was another between 1910 and 1936. And there is the one Lincoln was talking about. And another one in the 1810's.

Coat changes mostly involve a reshuffling of voting blocs between the parties. They do not reflect changes in the parties fundamental purpose. The GOP and its precursors have changed coasts several times, but they have always been the party of the capitalist elite. In other words changing coats doesn't solve any problems of governance, it simply serves as a way for the parties to preserve themselves. And with 150 years of cultural evolution under their belt, both parties have gotten pretty good at that.

The problem is that the current elites are selfish and decadent. I for one have recognized this since 9/11 when the ruling class refused to go to total war or use nuclear weapons against the Islamists after 9/11. Restorationism is for the most part designed to counter this tendency by replacing the current political class with the meritocratic elite and the civil-military education system and administrative system. To this end we will take the gloves off in terms of both dealing with obstacles to reform as well as with our foreign rivals and enemies. The vassalization of Latin America and especially the general pacification of the middle east would have the purpose of securing resources and industrial capacity in order to defend against our enemies in addition to the objective of exploitation of those resources, especially in the occupied middle east and north Africa. It will be glorious; the pacification of the Islamic world would be like back in the days of the Spanish conquistadors, in large areas the local population would be reorganized into work settlements to satisfy the requirements of maintaining newly built settlement cities and administrative cities which would be populated by American, Anglophone, Latin American, Indian, African, and Israeli settlers. The resulting superstate would constitute a New Order across much of the world as well as the start of a new phase in Human History.

Mikebert,

I get the shift in the Republican side. I'm not that different from my parents, politically, and they are Republican leaning Independents (who will likely vote for Hillary), and their parents were Eisenhower-Nixon type Republicans in California. My paternal grandfather worked directly for the party and for Rep. Jerry Pettis, Charles Wiggins, and Senator John Warner. His family going back were Republicans clear to the 1850s in Illinois. I really don't think what you think I mean and what I think I mean are the same thing.

But mostly, it's no surprise that a Soros-funded organization would target Hillary's top challenger.

Yeah, I don't generally like conspiracy theories, but I'm glad you said it.

Yes and a bigger share of the Republican base are haves too, particularly Tea party members.

This is true, and yet the wealthier areas of the country vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. It's not so cut and dried.

What I think you are talking about is the movement of well-educated white professionals from the GOP to the Dems. But this has been more than offset by the migration of working class whites from the Dems to the GOP. I read in an post-2012 electoral analysis that Republicans have captured a rising share of white voters over the past few decades, including a majority of white millennials in 2012.

And I expect it will continue. Which is why I have been repeatedly saying that the Republicans are not going away, although they will change.

You seem to be using the "What's the matter with Kansas" analysis. Democrats would not have lost the white working class had then not abandoned them during the Carter administration. The economic well-being of working class Americans has already be closely tied to real wage levels. If you look back in history who see there were bursts of wage gains corresponding to the Wilson. FDR+Truman, and Kennedy-Johnson. These gains were associated with high or rising strike frequency. When Republicans were in office, strike frequency declined and wage growth was muted. But when Carter came in and the Dems controlled government strike frequency did not rise, and wages continued their downward trend. Clinton saw some weak wage gains, but labor was now moribund so it wasn't much. This wasn't just bad luck. Carter brought in Volcker to put the cost of restraining inflation entirely on the back of workers, instead of on capitalists as it have been by the New Dealers. And so the policy remains to this day.

Pretty much. Also implicit in this analysis is that poor black people got thrown under the bus as well. Though due to the rise of identity politics they ended up, unsurprisingly, in the opposite party.

Having been abandoned by their economic allies, the only issues remaining are non-economic. Nearly half of the Democratic party is non-white, and a comfortable majority are women. White men maybe make up 25-30%. In contrast the GOP is probably majority white men. It proclaims an ideology that is more accepting of white men's feelings. White men are an identity group just like any other sociopolitical group and Republicans practice identity politics as well as Democrats.

Yup.

Yes, which would split the non-GOP vote leaving them dominant.

Eventually, and only for a little while. In the short term the clown car is alienating yuppies from making the shift, and in the long-run whites will eventually cease to be a majority of the electorate (barring dramatic and unforeseeable circumstances).

Edited at a poster's request.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Our difference is the bolded statement. It is wishful thinking. The Democrats and Republicans aren't going anywhere. Parties can and do change coats. Today's Republican and Democratic parties are totally different creatures than the entities that bore the same name in my youth. Look at my parent's presidential voting record: Eisenhower, Nixon. Goldwater, Nixon, Nixon/McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. Note the change. They didn't really change, the parties did. Ronald Reagan made the same point, although for him it was some of both. So that was a coat change. There was another between 1910 and 1936. And there is the one Lincoln was talking about. And another one in the 1810's.

Coat changes mostly involve a reshuffling of voting blocs between the parties. They do not reflect changes in the parties fundamental purpose. The GOP and its precursors have changed coasts several times, but they have always been the party of the capitalist elite. In other words changing coats doesn't solve any problems of governance, it simply serves as a way for the parties to preserve themselves. And with 150 years of cultural evolution under their belt, both parties have gotten pretty good at that.

Your points are good. However, we saw the birth of the Republican Party from the ruins of the Whigs in the civil war 4T era. So a new political party is not impossible to conceive rising out of our 4T either. Today's disaffection with the two major parties is unprecedented. So it's not out of the question that, as this 4T gets more intense and thus change more conceivable, the two party model itself could go out the window, and be replaced with the model that all the more-advanced democracies embrace to one extent or another: multi-party parliamentary rule. Our "democratic" system was the first one, and it's outdated and dysfunctional now. That fact could occur to people as the 4T time of change revs up and new generations get more power.

I don't know for sure, but that has been my prediction for many years now. I look at today's Republican Party, and I see it wearing a coat that has been tightly fastened to them and which they won't change. They are rigid ideologues and authoritarians such as our country has never seen before. They are not interested in the preservation of their party, but only in their ideology. I think they are likely to go down with their sails nailed to their mast.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Black Lives Matter is not quite the same as a "social issue" like abortion; it's just a matter of black and hispanic folks becoming more familiar with Bernie's record on racial issues. Then he'll get more support. In any case, "the economic plight of the many" certainly includes them.

I doubt this is the case. Activists, especially now in the 24/7 news cycle age, are not interested in absorbing anything. They expect to transmit and you are expected to receive. Most of us are not interested in listening either. It's getting to the point that no one listens to anyone about anything.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Eventually, and only for a little while. In the short term the clown car is alienating yuppies from making the shift, and in the long-run whites will eventually cease to be a majority of the electorate (barring dramatic and unforeseeable circumstances).

Aren't you assuming that the GOP will continue to be the party of people consider as "white" today, after they cease to be dominant politically? Why cannot the GOP expand the definition of white? That is leave the blacks, poor people and liberals for the Democrats while they take the rich, most of what we call "whites" today and middle-class Latinos and Asians, who by this time will be seen as "white" themselves. "White" (i.e. nonblack) will still be a majority, the GOP will still be the "white" party, its just that the definition of white becomes enlarged, as it has before.

As the American working class becomes poorer and poorer, living standards for those in entry-level position will lessen serve less of a draw for immigrants; the number of new immigrants will diminish. The children of existing immigrants will grow up speaking English and will in time become "white"* and those would manage to escape for poverty will vote for the GOP. The majority of Americans who are poor will mostly not vote, like today, and the GOP will remain the dominant party.

Why can't that happen? The whole strategy of the antebellum Southern Democrats was that through comparison to slaves, non-slaves came to see themselves as part of an unified "white" class. Poor and rich "whites" were on the same team, naturally under the leadership of the rich, who made economic policy that benefited themselves. After the Civil War the Democrats were able to build a coalition of very conservative, union-hating, anti-Catholic Southern Protestants along with Catholic Northern union supporters in the same party for more than half a century. Under FDR they managed to operate a coalition for a while that included Klan members and blacks (now THAT's a trick). Well the Democratic political know-how that made that possible now resides in the GOP and there is no reason why they cannot do this through a suitable coat change when the time comes. Right now their current strategy is working. In a decade or two they can begin to shift to this a strategy like this.

*Race is an invented concept and as such is quite flexible.

I don't see much political savvy among Republicans today. They won't even reverse their immigration policy in order to attract hispanics and make them into "whites." The only reason they can win elections is that young Democrats and independents are not voting in midterms.

Mikebert,

I'm sure that that will be the strategy, and even the present race contains substantial numbers of Hispanics who count as Whites. It's not surprising, half of American Hispanics identify as white today, and the intermarriage rates between Hispanics/Asians and Whites is quite high. That is what will keep them competitive as the aging Falwell and Limbaugh types die off. On the other hand, the enemy gets a vote too, and the Democrats will shift policies accordingly. Identity politics is the name of the game for now, and there is no reason why the political spectrum must shift back to one polarized primarily around economic ideology (though it will always be a component). Likewise, falling rates of economic growth will shrink the pool of middle class folks to draw on, even as immigration, even at a lower level (relative differences likely remaining high), will continue to replenish the ranks of the poor.

I'm still not sure what you think we're arguing about.

Unless you're arguing that we're heading into a permanent one party state, in which case we are actually in disagreement. As long as election laws are what they are, we will continue to have two parties at rough parity.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Unless you're arguing that we're heading into a permanent one party state, in which case we are actually in disagreement. As long as election laws are what they are, we will continue to have two parties at rough parity.

We actually do poorly when near parity exists, because the art of compromise either doesn't exist, leading to stalemate, or it does, leading to bland nothingness. Occasionally, both parties actually want to accomplish something, so we gather to fight a war, build the interstate highway system or go to the moon. But all of that was the direct result of one party, the Democrats in this case, dominating the political scene for an extended period. So even when they were in charge, the GOP was sill moving the country in roughly the same direction.

I don't see that happening again any time soon. Until it does, we're stuck in limbo.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We actually do poorly when near parity exists, because the art of compromise either doesn't exist, leading to stalemate, or it does, leading to bland nothingness. Occasionally, both parties actually want to accomplish something, so we gather to fight a war, build the interstate highway system or go to the moon. But all of that was the direct result of one party, the Democrats in this case, dominating the political scene for an extended period. So even when they were in charge, the GOP was sill moving the country in roughly the same direction.

I don't see that happening again any time soon. Until it does, we're stuck in limbo.

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution has run its course, but the new system hasn't consolidated itself yet. Think of the 70s, where the Republicans controlled the White House most of the time, the consensus last built around the New Deal was breaking down, but they hadn't changed the course of the country, yet. Let's look at the next couple of elections before wailing that nothing will change ever again.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We actually do poorly when near parity exists, because the art of compromise either doesn't exist, leading to stalemate, or it does, leading to bland nothingness. Occasionally, both parties actually want to accomplish something, so we gather to fight a war, build the interstate highway system or go to the moon. But all of that was the direct result of one party, the Democrats in this case, dominating the political scene for an extended period. So even when they were in charge, the GOP was sill moving the country in roughly the same direction.

I don't see that happening again any time soon. Until it does, we're stuck in limbo.

Americans don't want drastic change or single party rule that was once common around the globe. Parity guarantees gradual change. Americans don't mind gradual/limited change that benefits both sides or the country in general.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution has run its course, but the new system hasn't consolidated itself yet. Think of the 70s, where the Republicans controlled the White House most of the time, the consensus last built around the New Deal was breaking down, but they hadn't changed the course of the country, yet. Let's look at the next couple of elections before wailing that nothing will change ever again.

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution allowed us to financially consume the costs of the loss of Vietnam and increase our cash flow to finance the future costs associated with the passing of LBJ's Great Society. Now, in order to continue in the lefts direction, leftists are going to have to figure a way to make us millionaires and figure out a way to pay for a loaf of bread that cost the poor $20.00.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution allowed us to financially consume the costs of the loss of Vietnam and increase our cash flow to finance the future costs associated with the passing of LBJ's Great Society. Now, in order to continue in the lefts direction, leftists are going to have to figure a way to make us millionaires and figure out a way to pay for a loaf of bread that cost the poor $20.00.

The Reagan revolution (and related ones like that of Margaret Thatcher's in the UK) solved a particular set of problems with the support of a particular set of constituencies. It is, however, no longer the late 70s, and the makeup of society and the problems confronting it are different. It remains to be seen who sets the tone of the next party system.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution has run its course, but the new system hasn't consolidated itself yet. Think of the 70s, where the Republicans controlled the White House most of the time, the consensus last built around the New Deal was breaking down, but they hadn't changed the course of the country, yet. Let's look at the next couple of elections before wailing that nothing will change ever again.

Actually, the period occupied by Nixon/Ford/Carter was all transition. That's not to say that a lot didn't happen then. It did. It's just that most of what was happening wasn't
domestic policy, though politics were in high gear. International? Yes. Nixon went to China after all. But as a whole, the economy was on auto-pilot, and the rust-belt was being ravished by cost-cutter crowd. Off-shoring started right about then. And '68 is still a banner year.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Americans don't want drastic change or single party rule that was once common around the globe. Parity guarantees gradual change. Americans don't mind gradual/limited change that benefits both sides or the country in general.

We don't have gradual change. We have no change, and it's getting dangerously close to outright stagnation.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution allowed us to financially consume the costs of the loss of Vietnam and increase our cash flow to finance the future costs associated with the passing of LBJ's Great Society. Now, in order to continue in the lefts direction, leftists are going to have to figure a way to make us millionaires and figure out a way to pay for a loaf of bread that cost the poor $20.00.

The Reagan revolution (and related ones like that of Margaret Thatcher's in the UK) solved a particular set of problems with the support of a particular set of constituencies. It is, however, no longer the late 70s, and the makeup of society and the problems confronting it are different. It remains to be seen who sets the tone of the next party system.

As one who actually lived through that time as an adult, the Reagan Revolution wasn't so much a gainful change as an end to a period of constipation. We haven't done all that well since this new paradigm was instituted, and it looks like we won't until we find a new paradigm that actually works for more than a thin sliver at the top.

It was hard to live through the stagflation times, but let's not pretend that what followed was nirvana.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We don't have gradual change. We have no change, and it's getting dangerously close to outright stagnation.

Well, we're not going die rich or live out the rest our lives without any problems. True, in that way, we have not changed very much in that regard.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As one who actually lived through that time as an adult, the Reagan Revolution wasn't so much a gainful change as an end to a period of constipation. We haven't done all that well since this new paradigm was instituted, and it looks like we won't until we find a new paradigm that actually works for more than a thin sliver at the top.

It was hard to live through the stagflation times, but let's not pretend that what followed was nirvana.

That period was not nirvana but it had a reasonably well tuned feel. Interest rates were high enough to incent and reward savers, growth was reasonable and although you mentioned jobs going overseas, that really did not kick in at most companies until the 90s.

Jordan - I normally wouldn't interject on such a trivial matter. You, however, are such a bright and exceptionally well read young man, that I can't restrain myself. One of many weaknesses is that I am a bit of a constipated grammarian and your use of the phrase "cut and dry" grates on me. To wit, as with Rags and his snus, one grows tobacco, cuts it, and then hangs it out to dry (I assume one does the same with pot and any number of herbs). Consequently, and this is its medieval origin as well, the phrase is that something is "cut and dried" (not "dry").

By the way, I am very much enjoying your discussion with Dr. Alexander.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

If you think you can sway me with flattery, Mr. Krein, you're right.

I wasn't sure, and I guessed wrong. Consider it fixed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, the period occupied by Nixon/Ford/Carter was all transition. That's not to say that a lot didn't happen then. It did. It's just that most of what was happening wasn't
domestic policy, though politics were in high gear. International? Yes. Nixon went to China after all. But as a whole, the economy was on auto-pilot, and the rust-belt was being ravished by cost-cutter crowd. Off-shoring started right about then. And '68 is still a banner year.

What do you mean, "actually"? I just said that the '70s (Presidents: Nixon/Ford/Carter) were a transitional period. You can start it at '68 if you like, just as you can start this decade off with the financial crisis/Obama's election, too. Plenty of stuff is going on overseas, Obama is even attempting a realignment with Iran (albeit without the ideological cover of Nixon, who safely occupied the far right of the Overton Window), the economy is on auto-pilot with the improvements in earnings stemming from cost-cutting, we're seeing the first signs of on-shoring... Shall I go on? I think we are in agreement that the analogy is apt, even if the specifics differ.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As one who actually lived through that time as an adult, the Reagan Revolution wasn't so much a gainful change as an end to a period of constipation. We haven't done all that well since this new paradigm was instituted, and it looks like we won't until we find a new paradigm that actually works for more than a thin sliver at the top.

It was hard to live through the stagflation times, but let's not pretend that what followed was nirvana.

On the contrary, it was a gainful change for many, my parents included. It wasn't called "Morning in America" because everybody was uniformly miserable. Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC didn't swipe their playbook for nothing. Of course, the changes instituted to address the excesses of the post-war order (crime, stagflation, etc.) have in turn caused their own maladies (financialization, mass incarceration, stagnant wages for increasing numbers, etc.) which need to be addressed.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Yeah, yeah, we're in a transitional phase. The Reagan revolution allowed us to financially consume the costs of the loss of Vietnam and increase our cash flow to finance the future costs associated with the passing of LBJ's Great Society. Now, in order to continue in the lefts direction, leftists are going to have to figure a way to make us millionaires and figure out a way to pay for a loaf of bread that cost the poor $20.00.

If you're happy with what Ray-gun did, you must be simple giddy over the Obama Miracle -



And X'er, if you're paying $20 for bread, you need to go to a different store.

The proper way to compare cost from one era to the next is not by nominal or inflation-adjusted prices. That's like comparing the cost of crossing the country by covered wagon in the 1840s to the cost of flying across today on a jet plane - makes no sense.

How many minutes of labor did someone have to work in the 1980s for a loaf of bread compared today? Assuming the same quality (basically you got Wonder Bread back in the '80s; today, Panera), you work a lot less time for your slice than you did back then.

One of the biggest mistakes (among many) by inflationisties is inflating prices of goods and services but not wages. It's pretty dumb.